“Family business” Deripaska

What are offshore yachts and mansions registered in the name of mother of Russian businessman Oleg Deripaska

Attracted unexpected attention “thanks,” Alexei Navalny and Anastasia Fish big businessman Oleg Deripaska turns out to be successful in making money at the genetic level. Namely, all went to the mother, 79-year-old pensioner Valentina Petrovna, as it turned edition Sobesednik.ru that is the real “shark business”. This is eloquently demonstrated by the assets available to it in stock. Understand, perhaps, in order.

Let’s start with the analysis of real estate. Despite the fact that “humble pensioner” three years ago gave his brother Alex Esubva (by the way, the Deputy of the state Duma of the Russian Federation) a 73-meter house near Zvenigorod, outside Valentina left her present abode is on the ruble, almost adjacent to the residence of our Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. The only time the owner of the HOMESTEAD not herself, and the legal entity, the owner of which is – “the Second house”, previously owned by Oleg Deripaska, and then transferred to a mother loving son. Estimated “house” is now about two billion rubles, and the office of the company is located in the heart of the capital. By the way, the business center, the location of the “Second house”, owned by “First office”, also property of Valentina Petrovna, and “pull” it about 300 million rubles.

Until recently, more specifically, to 2015, the firm was in possession of was on offshore Cyprus “LangID limited”. He is still the owner of the company “Checkinventory”, which belongs to the Khakass estate in the tract Babik on the river UI, where Oleg Deripaska has built a ski resort called “Gorny”. And this is not the only place to stay nice family not far from the presidential residence near Gelendzhik is a boarding house, built by the company “betta”, and Valentina Deripaska is one of the co -. He stands on the cadastral estimate that about half a billion rubles.

So, with the houses sorted out, you should see an overview of the apartments. Earlier Valentine Deripaska was stated in the old pre-revolutionary house at Rozhdestvensky Boulevard. Having moved down there, she gave the apartment the already mentioned brother. Now in its ownership are 170 “squares” on Sretenke – according to rough estimates, the cost of the home is 100 million rubles. Another apartment – Tverskaya, 177,7 “squares” – is about 200 million and is, by the way, in the same house as the place of residence Sergey Kogogin, co-chair of the election headquarters of Vladimir Putin (he’s CEO of “KAMAZ”). And finally, a loving son Oleg gave in 2010, the mother’s 15-room penthouse on Ostozhenka. It subject area 834 in the “square”, estimated at one billion rubles.

Next, go to the other property. Already become an independent star after a sensational investigation, the yacht Elden, worth about 100 million rubles, is also owned by 79-year-old pensioner Valentina Petrovna: the company “Yacht-club Center”, which recorded the ship, the mother of an oligarch – one of the owners. Elden accompanying the ship “North shadow” is the same owners. Another holder of shares of the “Yacht club of the Center” – already referred to earlier in the article “LangID limited” – also owns the “Baikal yacht club” plus a number of companies, including one that is engaged in providing air transportation of Oleg Deripaska. Which, by the way, uses to move a few business jets, such as M-UGIC and M-ALAY, was, judging by the letter M in the prefix, in the offshore area of the Isle of man. The owners of the boards don’t exactly set: one presumably is now in Switzerland, the second in the virgin Islands. But there is a liner, the owner of which is known, and this Valentina Deripaska: recorded belonging to her company Cloud Air Services Limited plane M-SAWO on Board is worth about three billion. However, the documents stating that the mother of the tycoon is the ultimate beneficiary of the said offshore company, is not signed it personally, and it is already familiar to all the representative Alexei Zubov, people’s choice, and uncle businessman.

Since we were talking about the offshore, not to mention the other assets of the pensioner associated with this field, for example, outstanding Cloud Air Service (BVI) Limited and Bennet Select Corporation. However, the greatest interest is owned by Valentina Petrovna JSC “Revival”, which has a huge number of firms in the Fatherland. Range of interests is very wide: from consulting, sports, construction and logistics to financial investments and property management. Geography is also impressive: Khakassia, Krasnodar region, Diveevo, two capitals and this is not a complete list. The partners of “Renaissance” it is easy to guess – the Deputy of the state Duma of Usubov and members of his family, as well as offshore “LangID limited”. Even if based on official data, it turns out that the total balance of all of the companies, or otherwise affiliated with members of the great family, is close to 6 billion rubles, and if you take into account the offshore income, will a full dozen. The most amazing thing is that no claim in fact to Oleg Deripaska can not be – it’s not his fault that he was so financially successful mother.

By the way, the claim of the oligarch about the interference in his private life is subject to consideration of the Ust-Labinsk by court (Krasnodar region) is not accidental: it was here, more specifically, in the village of Sokol, the home of his mother, Deripaska has a permanent registration, as suddenly it became clear relatively recently from the notorious “Panama records”. Today Oleh Blokhin is the only resident of the farm, and, of course, could not create a comfortable environment. Sokolsky is a farm plus the mansion (where there is even a stables), plus a sports complex and a number of infrastructure objects. The owner of all this stuff listed personally oligarch – this time a pensioner Valentina Petrovna nothing to do with it.

In any case, recall that all materials used for analysis, taken from public information sources, and therefore their inclusion does not can be qualified as interference in someone’s private life.